State Underestimated Keystone Climate Emissions by 4X

The US State Department has beenseverely criticizedfor many aspects of itsenvironmental impact studyof the controversial Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline. Much of the criticism has centered around the conclusion that the pipeline would have a negligible impact on climate change.

The State Department’s argumentis that the tar sands would be exploited whether KXL was built or not. “At the end of the day, we are going to be consuming that oil,” former Secretary of the InteriorKen Salazarhas said.

Back in Aprillast year, Oil Change International and other environmental organizations released a report that showed how flawed that argument is.

Now a new scientific study also argues that the State Department has seriously underestimated the climate emissions from KXL.The study, published in the journalNature Climate Change, concludes that KXL could produce four times more greenhouse gases than the State Department calculated.

The study was conducted by researchers at theStockholm Environment Institutein Seattle, Washington. It argues that the State Department did not take into account the impact the pipelinemay have on the global oil market and uses lifecycle analysis to measure the increase in oil demand stimulated by the increase in oil supply that the pipeline would provide.

Theanalysis suggests that building Keystone XL wouldincrease oil supply, lower global oil prices and stimulate an increase in consumption of up to 0.6 barrels per barrel of pipeline capacity. They calculate that this would increase emissions by 121 million tons a year.

“There is no indication that the State Department took the market implication into consideration,”said lead author Peter Erickson. “This is our analysis, and we believe that it could have the greatest emissions impact of the pipeline”.

He added that our“key message is that the oil market impacts of Keystone XL could be significant – and have an emissions impact four times greater than the US State Department found.”

Their analysis is backed by other international researchers: “The math works out. The model is simple and straightforward,”says Nico Bauerof the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

In the high-end political and economic stakes over the pipeline, it is not surprising, therefore that the Canadian government has been quick to try and rubbish the report. The Harper Government says the study is based on “false assumptions”.